CIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEENA INDUSTRIES, UJHA ROAD, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/116/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095428201121 November 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the specific question of law raised in this appeal had already been decided against the Revenue in a previous case, ITA No.916 of 2008, titled Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/s Sheena Industries, Ujha Road, Panipat, which was decided on November 23, 2009. In light of this prior decision, the High Court found no need to re-examine the issue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific finding was given on the merits of the deduction under Section 80HHC, as the appeal was disposed of on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated September 26, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'G'. The ITAT's order was in relation to ITA No.968/Del/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. The appeal concerns the deduction allowed to the assessee, M/s Sheena Industries, under Section 80HHC of the Act. The assessee is a supporting manufacturer, and the dispute revolves around whether they should be treated at par with direct exporters for the purpose of this deduction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow deduction under Section 80HHC to the assessee, who is a supporting manufacturer, in the same manner as in the case of a direct exporter, thereby treating the supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter and ignoring the provisions of Section 80HHC(1A) read with Section 80HHC(3A) read with clause (baa) of the explanation of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in allowing the deduction under Section 80HHC to a supporting manufacturer as if they were a direct exporter, contending that this ignored the specific provisions of Section 80HHC(1A), Section 80HHC(3A), and clause (baa) of the explanation to Section 80HHC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80HHC,Section 80HHC(1A),Section 80HHC(3A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income-tax Appeal No. 116

of 2011

-1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No. 116

of 2011

Date of decision: 21.11.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Sheena Industries, Ujha Road, Panipat ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. **** HEMANT GUPTA, J. The revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', New Delhi dated 26.9.2008 in ITA No.968/Del/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. The revenue has claimed following substantial question of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), directing the A.O. to allow deduction u/s 80HHC to the assessee, who is a supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case of direct exporter, treating the supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter and ignoring the provisions of section 80HHC(1A) read with Section 80HHC(3A) read with clause (baa) of explanation of section 80HHC of the I.T.Act, 1961?”

Income-tax Appeal No. 116

of 2011

-2- **** Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the said question of law stands decided against the revenue in ITA No.916 of 2008 Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M/s Sheena Industries, Ujha Road, Panipat decided on 23.11.2009. In view of above, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present case. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

JUDGE November 21, 2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka

JUDGE

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →